Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Migrate packages dashboards to by value visualizations #3448

Closed
7 tasks done
ruflin opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 13 comments
Closed
7 tasks done

Migrate packages dashboards to by value visualizations #3448

ruflin opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 13 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ruflin
Copy link
Member

ruflin commented Jun 1, 2022

Kibana visualizations can be added in a dashboard by value or by reference. As historically by value did not exist, most dashboards are still using by reference. Switching to value has the advantage that the dashboards are fully self contained and only need a single request to be installed. Because of this existing dashboards should be moved over to use by value.

The biggest have the most used packages and the ones with many dashboards and visualisations. This meta issue is to track the work on migrating these packages.

As soon as this list is migrated, we should expand it to all integrations.

Migration script

A migration script was created to help with this effort: https://github.com/flash1293/legacy_vis_analyzer

Documentation

@andrewkroh
Copy link
Member

Meta issue for security-external-integrations: #3463

@bradenlpreston
Copy link

@jamiehynds - can you take a look at this?

@jamiehynds
Copy link

@bradenlpreston - we've made a list of integrations that require conversion here. Assuming there isn't a hard deadline, I've added this work as an 8.5 item as part of our team's planning session later this week.

@bradenlpreston
Copy link

Great! - thanks Jamie.

@tommyers-elastic
Copy link
Contributor

Hey all -For some dashboards that have been migrated to by-value, I still see a bunch of referenced objects for searches, tags, index patterns etc. Are these types of saved objects ok to be still referenced like this, or should these also be inlined? see this dashboard for an example

it seems like unless we do this this can't be true dashboards are fully self contained and only need a single request to be installed.

but at the same time, aren't saved searches sometimes top-level package assets too? in which case it wouldn't make sense to duplicate them.

thanks

@ruflin
Copy link
Member Author

ruflin commented Jan 13, 2023

As you described, we likely not end up having all assets by value (and shouldn't). But we should have clear guidelines for which these is the case.

@endorama
Copy link
Member

I opened a PR to update the dashboard guidelines documentation: #5021

@milanparmar-crest
Copy link

Team, Is anyone working on Migrating System and Azure dashboards to "by value" visualizations? If not we can take it up and start working on it.

@botelastic
Copy link

botelastic bot commented Jan 19, 2024

Hi! We just realized that we haven't looked into this issue in a while. We're sorry! We're labeling this issue as Stale to make it hit our filters and make sure we get back to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, it'd be extremely helpful if you could take a look at it as well and confirm its relevance. A simple comment with a nice emoji will be enough :+1. Thank you for your contribution!

@botelastic botelastic bot added the Stalled label Jan 19, 2024
@ruflin
Copy link
Member Author

ruflin commented Jan 22, 2024

@lalit-satapathy Where did we land here?

@botelastic botelastic bot removed the Stalled label Jan 22, 2024
@lalit-satapathy
Copy link
Collaborator

@lalit-satapathy Where did we land here?

We are addressing this as part of the fixing of the skipped validations of the package migration work. For the pass-by-value pending the skip was SVR00004.

Here is one PR being reviewed, for the initial set of packages. There was also a fix done in the in-liner script. The remaining set of packages will be taken up next here.

@ruflin
Copy link
Member Author

ruflin commented Jan 23, 2024

@lalit-satapathy Should we keep this issue open or consider it "completed" and all follow up is tracked separately?

@lalit-satapathy lalit-satapathy self-assigned this Jan 23, 2024
@lalit-satapathy
Copy link
Collaborator

Keeping it open and assigned to me. Will close once all SVR00004 fixes here are done.

@shmsr shmsr closed this as completed Nov 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests